Ralph DiMassi

This week Ralph DiMassi, 40, was convicted of rape in the first degree in addition to charges of robbery, burglary and sexual abuse. He faces a sentence of 82 years to life for a September 17, 2008 attack on a 39-year-old Bay Ridge woman.

The victim claimed that her morning of horror began as she left her home near Fort Hamilton Parkway and 93rd Street on her way to work. DiMassi allegedly confronted her outside her building and drew a screwdriver, which he used to bash the woman over the head. He then allegedly dragged his dazed victim into the basement of the building were he assaulted her.

Remarkably, before leaving the scene, DiMassi allegedly offered an apology to his victim. She told investigators that before rising to leave DiMassi said, “I’m sorry. I’m going through some hard times. I didn’t mean to do this” and then  made a sign of the cross before fleeing the area.

Luckily, the penitent perv ran past a building surveillance camera, which was able to record images of his face. The footage helped detectives confirm his identity as a parolee who just three months earlier was released after serving twelve years for a 1996 robbery in Bensonhurst.

Cops were able to track DiMassi to Dyker Park where he was taken into custody and DNA tests confirmed his involvement in the attack.

Sentencing is planned to take place on June 14.

Well, it’s taken a bit longer than planned, but AllWaysNY is back!

Restore/Flickr

There’s a new call to expose exactly what is going on with the redevelopment at the World Trade Center site. It seems that Anthony Shorri, former executive director of the Port Authority, may have violated federal securities rules when he touted overly-optimistic construction timelines and budgets for WTC redevelopment and in effect misled investors who purchased Port Authority bonds. Shorri’s successor, Christopher Ward, recently announced that the project is significantly behind schedule in almost all areas and over budget.

In a letter obtained yesterday, George Marlin, a former Port Authority executive director, asks the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York for an investigation and asserts, “Given the recently disclosed fiasco led by the Port Authority, the question of whether there was fraud, waste and abuse on a mammoth scale must be addressed by an independent party.” This call for an investigation comes a day after a Republican state senator from Long Island called for a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into the matter.

In other reassuring news, it seems that the new head of the Port Authority feels that running the agency charged with reconstruction at the WTC site is not really a full-time job. He’s decided to split his time between the Authority and another paid position on the board of the New York Independent System Operator (the nonprofit that manages the state’s power grid). Oh, and speaking of reassuring, the Port Authority just hired as an engineering adviser a former MTA executive who was fined $10,000 for taking bribes from a contractor doing business with the transit agency–and guess what–the same contractor who did the bribing is also working with the Port Authority on the new transit hub project.

Sean Bell and his fiancée Nicole Paultre

Seven officers who were involved in the 2006 shooting of Sean Bell were notified today that they may face NYPD administrative charges for their role in the incident. The notices of disciplinary action come almost a month since a judge found that Detectives Marc Cooper, Gescard Isnora, and Michael Oliver were not responsible for the death of Bell. The disciplinary charges were brought against:

• Lt. Gary Napoli for failing to prepare an adequate tactical plan before the undercover sting at Club Kalua was initiated
• Det. Michael Oliver for discharging his firearm outside the department’s guidelines
• Det. Marc Cooper for discharging his firearm outside the department’s guidelines.
• Det. Gescard Isnora for discharging his firearm outside the department’s guidelines and for taking enforcement action while he was undercover when there were other officers available to respond
• P.O. Michael Carey for discharging his firearm outside the department’s guidelines
• Det. Robin Knapp, a crime scene detective, for failing to follow proper procedures in the crime scene investigation
• Sgt. Hugh McNeill, a crime scene detective, for failing to properly supervise Det. Knapp

The charges can lead to loss-of-pay, suspension, or firing. The Police Department will reportedly wait until the Department of Justice brings charges (if any) in its investigation before taking any action. The NYPD administrative charges can be altered or dismissed completely upon further investigation in the interim.

mysticchildz/Flickr

This week, as part of the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act passed by the House of Representatives, a new commitment was made to try to determine the true extent of the decades-old Newtown Creek oil spill. The language in the bill gives the the Environmental Protection Agency $5 million and a year to create a three-dimensional model of the spill, collect data on the oil trapped underground and to what extent it has mixed with groundwater, and better chart the flow of the underground oil plume.

The massive oil spill, which spread into Newtown Creek and under the ground of the nearby Greenpoint neighborhood, occurred in 1950 on the site of what is now ExxonMobil property and was discovered in 1978. It was originally estimated at 17 million gallons (significantly larger than the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska), however recent estimates put the number somewhere between 17 and 30 million gallons, spread over 55 to 70 acres. The oil and oil products that were discharged have contaminated the creek and seeped into the earth and groundwater under homes and businesses in the area.

The real scope of the contamination remains unknown. A 2006 EPA study of the area proved inconclusive–let’s hope that this attempt will give those affected (and the oil companies charged with the continuing clean-up) a better idea of what they’re up against.

The three police officers who opened fire and killed Sean Bell with 50 bullets on November 25, 2006 (what would have been his wedding day) were today acquitted of all charges against them.

In a statement today, Judge Arthur Cooperman said that he felt that the prosecution’s case was undermined by “prior inconsistent statements” and doubted the credibility of some of the witnesses.

Below and continuing after the jump is the full transcript of Judge Cooperman’s statement today regarding his decision to acquit the three officers:

“Before dealing with the business at hand, I would like to remind everyone how important it is to honor the decorum of the court and remain quiet after the verdicts are rendered.

A trial is defined as a formal examination of the facts of a case by a court of law to decide the validity of a charge. It is also defined in the dictionary as a hardship. And, in many ways, this trial was a hardship.

But, it was not a competition. To overreact to the outcome while you are in this courtroom, whether you are satisfied or dissatisfied with the result, would detract from the great effort that was expended to assure a fair trial — by the court personnel and the attorneys who handled their responsibilities with the highest level of professionalism and skill.

Because establishments known as ‘strip clubs’ often generate criminal activity including prostitution and narcotics, the police dept. club enforcement unit was given the task of infiltrating such places and pursuing violations of law that would lead toward shutting them down.

So it was that the detectives charged in this case found themselves in the vicinity of Club Kalua in the early morning of Nov. 25, 2006. And as a result of the events of that morning, they are accused of the crimes alleged in the indictment.

Now, after eight weeks of trial, this court has the responsibility of making a determination of guilt or lack of guilt as to each of the charges set forth against each of the defendants.

As the trier of fact, this court must determine what the facts are, apply those facts to the applicable law, and render a verdict.

The court will do so. But before announcing a decision, a brief statement is in order. In weighing the evidence, the court examined the testimony of the witnesses and the factors to be considered in determining credibility.

An objective consideration of the proof ruled out sympathy and prejudice and any other emotional response to the issues presented. The court did not view the victims or the NYPD as being on trial here.

The burden of proof was on the people to prove each defendant ¼ of the crimes of which he was charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. And as with all criminal cases, each defendant was presumed to be innocent.

Because justification was raised as an issue, the people had the burden of proving as an element of each charged crime that each defendant was not justified.

It is important to note that in analyzing what happened here, it was necessary to consider the mind-set of each defendant at the time and place of occurrence, and not the mind-set of the victims. What the victims did was more pertinent to resolving the issues of fact than what may have been in their minds.

Also, carelessness and incompetence are not standards to be applied here, unless the conduct rises to the level of criminal acts, as defined by the law relating to each count charged.

What happened outside the Club Kalua on November 25, 2006, and the ensuing incident that occurred around the corner on Liverpool Street are the two significant events about which proof was elicited.

We instruct juries that it is expected that multiple witnesses to the same event may vary in their recounting of minor aspects of what had been observed. However, where there are significant inconsistencies related to important facts, they should be considered.

Reference was made earlier to the credibility of witnesses. The court has found that the people’s ability to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt was affected by a combination of the following factors: the prosecution witnesses’ prior inconsistent statements, inconsistencies in testimony among prosecution witnesses, the renunciation of prior statements, criminal convictions, the interest of some witnesses in the outcome of the case, the demeanor on the witness stand of other witnesses and the motive witnesses may have had to lie and the effect it had on the truthfulness of a witness’s testimony. These factors played a significant part in the people’s ability to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and had the effect of eviscerating the credibility of those prosecution witnesses. And, at times, the testimony just didn’t make sense.

Yet, it was apparent from the testimony of the participants that the confrontation that took place in front of the club was heated. The SUV owner, Fabio Coicou, gave the impression that he had a gun, causing at least one of the group to threaten to take it away from him. And, the court finds, another threat was made by Joseph Guzman to retrieve a gun. At that point, nothing of a criminal nature had taken place. But, having witnessed that provocative confrontation between Mr. Coicou and the group, the undercover officers became concerned and followed the group around the corner to Liverpool Street.

Defendant Isnora approached the Nissan Altima into which Mr. Guzman and Sean Bell, two of the more active participants in the heated exchange, entered.

The Altima, which was driven by Mr. Bell, sped away from its parked position, struck defendant Isnora and collided head on with the police van that had entered Liverpool Street. The Altima then went into reverse, backed up on to the sidewalk, struck a gate and then went forward and to the right, striking the police van again. As this was happening, defendant Isnora — who testified in the grand jury — observed Mr. Guzman, the front passenger, move his body as if he were reaching for a weapon. Defendant Isnora yelled, “gun” and fired. Other officers, indicted and unindicted, joined in from different locations on the street. The court has found that the incident lasted just seconds. The officers responded to perceived criminal conduct; the unfortunate consequences of their conduct were tragic.

The police response with respect to each defendant was not proved to be criminal, i.e. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Questions of carelessness and incompetence must be left to other forums.

Although there were aspects of defense testimony that were not necessarily credible, the focus must be on the people’s proof to determine whether they have satisfied their burden of proving the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

To the extent that the defense of justification was applicable to the charged crimes, counts 1, 2, 3, 4 in part, 5 in part, 6, 7, and 8, the people have not proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that each defendant was not justified in the actions that each took.

With respect to counts 4 and 5, Trent Benefield, whose credibility was seriously impeached, testified that he was shot while running down Liverpool Street. Forensic evidence demonstrated otherwise. Thus, although the justification defense would not have applied to that aspect of counts 4 and 5, it was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the court finds each defendant not guilty of each of the respective counts in the indictment of which they were charged.”

Deutsche Bank Building/Flickr

Four city firefighters injured while battling the Deutsche Bank building fire last summer are suing the city, state, and building contractors for their injuries. The fire also claimed the lives of firefighters Robert Beddia and Joseph Graffagnino when they became trapped on the 14th floor.

The new lawsuits are being brought against the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, Bovis Lend Lease, the city, and several subcontractors by Battalion Chief Michael Borst and firefighters Sean McBrien, Francis McCutchen, and Steve Olsen. The injuries they sustained in the blaze have disqualified them from further work with the FDNY.

The lawsuits come soon after the families of the two firefighters who died filed suit against the city/state agencies and contracting companies involved in the deconstruction of the building, which was damaged in the terrorist attacks of September 11.

Embattled City Council Speaker Christine Quinn has hired a criminal defense attorney, Lee S. Richards II, to represent her in the continuing investigations into the Council’s budget practice of allocating funds to nonexistent organizations, and then spending the cash set aside at different times and for different projects. Richards and Sullivan & Cromwell, another firm hired by the Speaker, will be paid with tax-payer dollars.

Also at a press conference last Friday, Quinn outlined a set of four reforms to the spending practices of the Council:

• Funds set aside by the Speaker will be distributed through a competitive merit-based process. Groups hoping to obtain Council funding will compete within a set of categories overseen by the Mayor’s Office of Contract Services.
• An Independent Compliance Office would be established to ensure that Council members follow all rules for doling out funds.
• Organizations receiving Council funding will be subject to a stricter set of eligibility requirements and accounting disclosures.
• An online searchable database would be created. Modeled after Attorney General Cuomo’s Project Sunlight, it would publish all applications from any organization that applies for Council funding. The database would be updated within ten business days of approval of any funding allocation.